(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Now functioning

Seems to work ok on Slacko 5.6 - but I don't know enough about how to use it to be sure if it's working 100%.

Did you get it working satisfactorily? If so, which puppy?

Any particular problems?

cheers!

Hi Smithy, hi greengeek.

Maybe a few words about what this app does? When you don't know, it sounds like a line
of spaghetti sauces!

Anyway, their site is well done, so I was able to figure it out: in a nutshell, it's a text editor
AND text organizer for wordsmiths.

I just downloaded it. (Thanks for the tip, Smithy.) It may come in handy with large
documentation projects.

BFN.

Well I am gradually getting it to run in artful puppy.
The spell checking in options is blank, no dictionaries, so tried loading libaspell and the dev..no joy yet with that. It just lies and says it has checked yor spelink.

Here's Scrivener, a pretty good text editor and organizer writing software package, needs a fairly recent Puppy.


http://smokey01.com/Smithy/scrivener-1. ... o-docs.pet

Thanks for the pet, smithy.

Seems to run fine under 32-bit Artfulpup, Xenialpup and Tahrpup.

On Xenialpup64, even though I have 32-bit libraries installed, it hung up the system and I had to force a reboot.

Had to change the icon argument in /usr/share/applications to a png for it to show on a Menu under vicmz's openboxplus in tahrpup.

I'll have to learn how to use it. But it seems like a good addition to Puppy's writing tools. Thanks again.

mikesLr

p.s. Also runs under Slacko 5.99, the last upgrade of Slacko 5.7 before 01micko published Slacko 6.0. On all the Puppies I've tested ldd reveals "no missing dependencies". I begin to suspect that by incorporating all the necessary lib files the way you did you may have created pet which will run under most 32-bit Puppies of recent vintage.

Did you ever resolve the "The spell checking in options is blank, no dictionaries"? I don't know enough even how to create a document, let alone run a spell check. But examination revealed that wordnet is included suggesting that Scivener has a built in thesaurus.

Hi Mike, thanks for testing, I should have mentioned 32 bit, I don't currently use any 64 bit puppies a lot, fatdog occasionally, but the 32 bit puppies are fine for me as yet.
It might need a special for 64 bit. Probably specific libs and possibly for each distro.

Yes I tried to get the spellchecker working, but it had me stumped.
I know some Scrivener users resort to online spell checkers and thesaurus, but it can be done...something to do with libaspell dev I think.

I wanted to get the .config right and a documents path sorted so that the user wouldn't have to mess around finding stuff, as the original setup is a bit all over the place and asks you to create this that and the other before you get started.
So I tried to make it wash and go.

Anyways if all the components work reliably, then I will come back to the spellchecker, or possibly a forum member can get that bit working!
It was good of the Literature and Latte team to make Scrivener available to Linux users, even though understandably their focus is on windows and mac.

Hi Smithy,

As I said, I'm really an entire newby with Scrivener. So I don't currently know if it includes a front-end for the Wordnet module you've built in. If not, you might considering incorporating artha which is, itself, only a front-end for Wordnet.

As far as spell-checking: I spent a quarter of a century as an Appellate Attorney. It was common for me to research, accumulate notes from various sources, and write 50 page briefs citing those notes. I acquired a computer almost immediately after PC's with word-processing software became available under DOS, Later, when applications providing the 'Bells and Whistles" of a Graphical User Interface (with font choices) and spell and grammar checkers [never used the latter, too restrictive] came on the market I "up-graded". On the one hand, it made production more efficient. But it also provided a distraction. Rather than concentrating on content, when I wanted to use a word whose spelling was dubious I couldn't help but stop writing while searching for the right spelling. A better solution would have been to finish writing and then 'spell-check" the entire document. But that wasn't in my nature.

For others like me, the absence of 'spell-checking" may be a "blessing in disguise".

mikesLr

Smithy, why did you remove the useful information from your first post?

Hi Flash, there wasn't much there I don't think, just asking if anyone could get it working and that it might be a dependency hell. And it was.